Doesn't matter? Without somebody putting up the capital it doesn't happen. Civilian Nuclear IMHO has two options - very small units that don't cost a lot or (the unlikely approach) find some way to get itself funded.
A windmill doesn't cost much even if it takes ten thousand to match a nuclear power station - but they are not being purchased ten thousand at a time are they?

Sometimes they just indicate bad tax laws. Part timers or seasonal workers getting taxed as if they are full time get large refunds in some places and there's no way they can plan around it - they just have to wait while the government holds their money at zero interest.

Refugees get held accountable. Get born to the wrong parents and you get deported with them instead of citizenship in the place where you were born :(

That is all of them. Remember one of the nasty tricks with the "Patriot" act (apart from it's name) was to rush it through before anyone in Congress who was not responsible for drafting it had a chance to even see the first page.

are accomplished electrical engineers in transmission

Ask one of them instead of name dropping and supplying stuff dreamed up by political interns instead. The most "accomplished electrical engineer in transmission" I know started in the business in about 1950 - he has solar panels on his roof and wishes they were widespread before he retired. They would have made his job a lot easier. If you can't work out several reasons why you are not really thinking about the issue.

I have college level physics education

What do you think it was for then? Use it! Don't fall for the bullshit spread by people with a political agenda.

Thanks for the lecture but I suggest attempting to understand what I wrote above before writing simplistic shit like "Too much electricity in the grid is just as bad as too little". It may help if you learn a little bit about how those panels you are being critical about are connected to the grid and how they are controlled.

Every extra solar panel and wind turbine added to the grid increases grid instability a little more.

Who told you that bullshit - some accounts intern at an energy company annoyed at losing market share? It certainly wasn't anyone with enough of a clue to even know ohms law. Try thinking for yourself instead of swallowing then regurgitating such shit. Back in the day we would have loved a lot of nice clean waveform silicon rectified electricity sources right at the points of maximum consumption and pumping out power during the daytime peak.

Nuclear had very large potential returns but you have to put in a lot of capital and a lot of time to build the things. Banks won't touch it and governments don't have spare cash lying around so things with smaller unit sizes and shorter construction time are the things that get built.

I can point you to a paper that gives all the detailed facts in 10 pages

Most readers here are probably beyond far that and probably want something a bit less simplistic than is suggested by your comment above, especially since I just had to state what should be obvious to someone who thinks they know enough about the topic to share their opinion on it here.

doing it now is a lack of a plan for the spent fuel

Reprocessing into MOX and the rest (plus reprocessing waste) going into Synroc.

I just wonder when the tipping point happens where people and businesses stop wanting to be beholden to Middle Eastern oil

It was 1979, but a later administration decided to go into business with Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc in a big way and scrapped the move towards energy independence.

are all over solar, wind, and other alternative energy

Not as much as the Chinese are, which should be a wake up call because they are about as far from "green" as you can get and are doing it for pragmatic reasons.

There were some idiots that went looking for such shit in what they said was in "the interests of balance", but really it was about creating a fake argument to try to have something sensational to provoke readers to read their rag instead of another publication. It all blew over within weeks. If there was as much to it as you seem to remember then there wouldn't be any need for faked magazine covers to try to pretend it was all the rage back then.
See also articles in the same magazines predicting that we'd all have flying cars by 1990.

1970's? Global cooling? Are you serious?

Such folk are so serious about it that fake magazine covers have been photoshopped together to support it.
Just ignore the loyal little comrade doing what his party tells him to do. It's just a bit of soviet russia style revisionism and propaganda.

They sure aren't going into space missions

So who has the launcher and is capable of manned missions then? Not NASA is it? Instead of cheering for something broken why not hassle elected officials to stop breaking it.
Your "nationalist" shit is way off the mark because I'm not European and NASA paid for part of my engineering degree back in the 1980s - I really want to see them succeed but political corruption has reduced them to a few skunkworks projects hiding between slabs of pork. The effort to produce a launcher for manned missions is a prime example of a project made utterly useless and abandoned because pork was the primary objective.

Did you read my post at all? There's the word "pork" in there a few times that you should have noticed, and as for getting "nationalist" out of it - please pay attention before posting guys.